LETTER: Says John Roberts Isn't Smug

July 03, 2013

So Chief Justice John Roberts is "smug," according to a Courant editorial [July 2, "A Crippling Blow"]. Really? And how does the writer know that? Was he present to hear his cunning chuckle and witness his sly grin as he wrote his opinion? Or is he smug simply for daring to disagree with the Courant's editorial opinion? Am I smug for agreeing with the chief justice?

Or is he smug for simply stating the obvious -- that although we still have a long way to go, we've made remarkable progress in dealing with racial prejudice in the past half-century and that sections of the Voting Rights Act unfairly target parts of our country that no longer deserve that discriminatory treatment? Or perhaps he's smug for refusing to leave a bad law in place because he can't count on Congress to do its job?

The editorial smugly assures us that Connecticut is "happily, going the other way" by continuing to assume that our attitudes on race and prejudice are morally superior to those of our fellow Americans elsewhere in the country.

The editorial is right: There are a lot of smug people in this world, but John Roberts isn't one of them.